Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: A good use of a bad feature
Message-ID: <3000078@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-May-86 10:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.3000078
Posted: Fri May  9 10:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 01:20:25 EDT
References: <1853@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:mit-eddie.MIT.EDU:1853:uokvax.UUCP:3000078:000:600
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    May  9 09:35:00 1986


/* Written 10:49 am  May  4, 1986 by root@icst-cmr in net.lang.c */
You will find much disagreement on that point, I'm afraid. Fall thru is
more flexible. You can always break, but often cases are related so that
a particular case requires a superset of another case. It is to DMR's
credit that he realized this feature. I sure wouldn't have thought of it.
/* End of text from net.lang.c */

Ravening C worship should not get in the way of historical accuracy.  The
fall-through of cases in switch statements was inherited from BCPL.
You have its originators to, uh, thank for it.

						James Jones